Microsoft launched the Kinect with a variety of games that used only motion …

Microsoft's Kinect launched with the company telling gamers that their body was now the controller, and the first line-up of games relied on motion control exclusively for their game mechanics. This wasn't the launch of a new peripheral—it was Microsoft treating their new-fangled camera as an entirely new platform. The marketing message was clear: you did not need to hold anything to play.

This year's E3 saw Microsoft softening on that stance, and now a variety of games aimed at the core audience are treating the Kinect as a peripheral, an add-on that will bring extra value to a number of core games. With the hardware a hit, expanding the audience to hardcore gamers could go a long way to keep sales strong.

How Kinect will add options to your games

I sat in a Forza 4 presentation with Turn 10's Dan Greenawalt as he used the voice-recognition features of the Kinect to zip around the game's menus. He held up the controller and let us know that we could still do everything in the traditional way, but voice control can take you directly to the desired menu. You will be able to steer using the Kinect by holding your hands in front of yourself, but Greenawalt assured us that this was aimed at casual game players; full support for the controller and a variety of steering wheels would also be included.

The best use of the technology was the head tracking. While in the middle of a race, you can turn your head left and right and the Kinect will change your view of the race in a fluid, natural way, allowing you to look at other cars or to see around corners in a more organic way. It works wonderfully, and it certainly pulls you into the game. While you don't need any of this to play, the combination of Kinect head tracking and a controller will definitely give hardcore racers an advantage on the track.

During Microsoft's press conference, it was also announced that voice controls were coming to Mass Effect 3. Not only will you be able to speak the dialog options instead of selecting them via your controller, but the game will allow you to speak orders to your squad, telling them where to move and what powers to use when they get there. This is a quicker way to give orders than moving through menus, and will also work when you're controlling the game in the traditional way, with a controller in your hand. This is just an extra level of optional interactivity.

The last example of a game using the Kinect well came during a demonstration of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier from Ubisoft. In the weapon customization screen you can use the Kinect and move your hands apart, which will cause your weapon to expand into an exploded view, complete with each of the customizable parts. Using hand motions, you'll be able to upgrade and adjust multiple components of the weapon, or simply say "optimize for range" to have the game reorganize your favorite gun so it is more suited to longer-ranged combat. The whole thing had a very Iron Man feel, and you can even take your new creation to a firing range for a few quick test shots, fired by opening and closing your fist.

Opening more doors for gameplay

We played plenty of games that will only use the Kinect for their controls at E3. Some were fun, while others were terrible. Even taking away the games that use the hardware for primary controls, the Kinect holds a lot of promise when it comes to tracking the movements of your head and arms to add more interactivity to existing games, or merely as a way to add voice controls. The Kinect doesn't make sense for all titles, but the examples shown at E3 offer a few hints about what we might see in the future.

Microsoft has done a good job of treating the Kinect as a gaming peripheral instead of a discrete platform, and as long as developers focus on what works and what adds value instead of gimmicks, we're sure to see even better implementation in the future.

They should keep shifting it then, because honestly those are precisely the wrong kinds of games to use kinect for. When will we finally admit these motion control schemes are just totally inappropriate for some kinds of games? I play racing games on a wheel, FPS games on a mouse and keyboard ect ect. There is undoubtedly something neat that can be done with Kinect, but playing FPS games and racing games is not that thing.

The best use of the technology was the head tracking. While in the middle of a race, you can turn your head left and right and the Kinect will change your view of the race in a fluid, natural way, allowing you to look at other cars or to see around corners in a more organic way

Surely if you move your head you won't be looking at the screen anymore. And if the screen is big enough that you will still be looking at it, well, you don't need head tracking, cos its already showing you what you need to see.

This is exactly what I had in mind for the controller, my brother wants it a step beyond this, where he could control his squad in a tactical shooter with actual military handsigns(he's ex-army). Stuff like that increases immersion without forcing you to bounce around like an idiot.

Have you even read how kinect is being used in the games in the title? I can't wait to try forza 4 with my wheel + head tracking via kinect. Not so excited about voice commands for fps games, but they could be fun too.

This is exactly what I had in mind for the controller, my brother wants it a step beyond this, where he could control his squad in a tactical shooter with actual military handsigns(he's ex-army). Stuff like that increases immersion without forcing you to bounce around like an idiot.

They should keep shifting it then, because honestly those are precisely the wrong kinds of games to use kinect for. When will we finally admit these motion control schemes are just totally inappropriate for some kinds of games? I play racing games on a wheel, FPS games on a mouse and keyboard ect ect. There is undoubtedly something neat that can be done with Kinect, but playing FPS games and racing games is not that thing.

Who is 'we'? Certainly not the majority of gamers. Motion controls are wildly popular precicely because they appeal to people who are not the traditional audience for a given genre. You are going to have to get over the fact that games are not designed for you personally at some point.

Seriously, FPS's sell far better on consoles with console controls than they do on PC. Racing games are played by plenty of people with nothing but a controller, no wheel. And if you can't imagine how a Kinect could enhance a game then you are not very imaginative. As I stated above, in a tactical shooter both voice control and hand signals, plus some level of head tracking would all be potentially very useful and immersive.

Do I think motion controls can completely replace any given control scheme? Of course not. But as a complementary technology it has awesome potential.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

They should keep shifting it then, because honestly those are precisely the wrong kinds of games to use kinect for. When will we finally admit these motion control schemes are just totally inappropriate for some kinds of games? I play racing games on a wheel, FPS games on a mouse and keyboard ect ect. There is undoubtedly something neat that can be done with Kinect, but playing FPS games and racing games is not that thing.

Who is 'we'? Certainly not the majority of gamers. Motion controls are wildly popular precicely because they appeal to people who are not the traditional audience for a given genre. You are going to have to get over the fact that games are not designed for you personally at some point.

Seriously, FPS's sell far better on consoles with console controls than they do on PC. Racing games are played by plenty of people with nothing but a controller, no wheel. And if you can't imagine how a Kinect could enhance a game then you are not very imaginative. As I stated above, in a tactical shooter both voice control and hand signals, plus some level of head tracking would all be potentially very useful and immersive.

Do I think motion controls can completely replace any given control scheme? Of course not. But as a complementary technology it has awesome potential.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others. I just don't think the technology is really that interesting or impressive for current games. If Kinect is to find a killer app, I think it will be a game engineered with that control scheme in mind and will likely be something novel.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

Kinect IIRC does tonnes of onboard processing and echo cancellation and if you have one then it's already set up for your room. If I'm issuing voice commands I'd rather not wear a headset than wear one, if only to stop dunking the mic in my coffee whilst playing.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

That doesn't make any sense for MS though - why utilize a $15 accessory everyone has when you can utilize a $150 one no one has? ;)

They should keep shifting it then, because honestly those are precisely the wrong kinds of games to use kinect for. When will we finally admit these motion control schemes are just totally inappropriate for some kinds of games? I play racing games on a wheel, FPS games on a mouse and keyboard ect ect. There is undoubtedly something neat that can be done with Kinect, but playing FPS games and racing games is not that thing.

Who is 'we'? Certainly not the majority of gamers. Motion controls are wildly popular precicely because they appeal to people who are not the traditional audience for a given genre. You are going to have to get over the fact that games are not designed for you personally at some point.

Seriously, FPS's sell far better on consoles with console controls than they do on PC. Racing games are played by plenty of people with nothing but a controller, no wheel. And if you can't imagine how a Kinect could enhance a game then you are not very imaginative. As I stated above, in a tactical shooter both voice control and hand signals, plus some level of head tracking would all be potentially very useful and immersive.

Do I think motion controls can completely replace any given control scheme? Of course not. But as a complementary technology it has awesome potential.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others. I just don't think the technology is really that interesting or impressive for current games. If Kinect is to find a killer app, I think it will be a game engineered with that control scheme in mind and will likely be something novel.

How is it not novel to be able to issue voice commands to your squad in a game? Remember, everything still works with the physical controller, but now you could issue commands directly by voice, increasing your ability to multi-task. How is it not a bonus to be able to use hand signals? How does head tracking detract from your ability to play the game?

My biggest problem with motion controls is the opposite, they have been used exclusively for games that are driven by those control schemes. I'd rather subtle enhancements, the ability to have a slight edge on those eschewing them by being able to do more at once with more of my body than just my hands on the controller.

You'll know this has arrived the day your opponent is kicking your butt because your simply glued to a single archaic control scheme and they are willing to use *all* the tools at their disposal.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others.

You may want to go back to the article, sparky. This use of Kinect supplements traditional controllers, not supplanting them. That is, to say, you can use your wheel/thumbsticks/whatever *and* Kinect - together.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

That doesn't make any sense for MS though - why utilize a $15 accessory everyone has when you can utilize a $150 one no one has?

Part of that is Kinect can offload that voice processing, meaning that the overhead of voice recognition doesn't have to be done by the 360. Every cycle of voice processing you add to the 360 is one that can't be doing other things. Doing it through the Kinect makes it virtually a co-processor.

They should keep shifting it then, because honestly those are precisely the wrong kinds of games to use kinect for. When will we finally admit these motion control schemes are just totally inappropriate for some kinds of games? I play racing games on a wheel, FPS games on a mouse and keyboard ect ect. There is undoubtedly something neat that can be done with Kinect, but playing FPS games and racing games is not that thing.

Who is 'we'? Certainly not the majority of gamers. Motion controls are wildly popular precicely because they appeal to people who are not the traditional audience for a given genre. You are going to have to get over the fact that games are not designed for you personally at some point.

Seriously, FPS's sell far better on consoles with console controls than they do on PC. Racing games are played by plenty of people with nothing but a controller, no wheel. And if you can't imagine how a Kinect could enhance a game then you are not very imaginative. As I stated above, in a tactical shooter both voice control and hand signals, plus some level of head tracking would all be potentially very useful and immersive.

Do I think motion controls can completely replace any given control scheme? Of course not. But as a complementary technology it has awesome potential.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others. I just don't think the technology is really that interesting or impressive for current games. If Kinect is to find a killer app, I think it will be a game engineered with that control scheme in mind and will likely be something novel.

How is it not novel to be able to issue voice commands to your squad in a game? Remember, everything still works with the physical controller, but now you could issue commands directly by voice, increasing your ability to multi-task. How is it not a bonus to be able to use hand signals? How does head tracking detract from your ability to play the game?

My biggest problem with motion controls is the opposite, they have been used exclusively for games that are driven by those control schemes. I'd rather subtle enhancements, the ability to have a slight edge on those eschewing them by being able to do more at once with more of my body than just my hands on the controller.

You'll know this has arrived the day your opponent is kicking your butt because your simply glued to a single archaic control scheme and they are willing to use *all* the tools at their disposal.

If I was playing a squad based game taking my hands off the controls to wave at a stupid camera would be the LAST thing I would do, that's how you get killed frustratingly over and over. Voice commands fine maybe, but really its just going to mis-interpet you and screw you over. How much fun will it be when your squad charges enemy lines instead of retreating because it doesn't understand your panicked screaming in an intense situation? Buttons are nice and precise for the style of game play and work fine. And head tracking is god awful, worst idea ever concept wise unless you have 360 degree screens. Do you make it so a slight turn of the head is the full rotation or so that to look behind you one must look away from the screen? Or do you mix it up and use thumb sticks with head rotation to make it even more confusing? These are not value adds IMO, are at best neutral and at worst can really fuck up a game.

Some things just sound better on paper than they work out. Kinect for most game styles is one of them IMO.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others.

You may want to go back to the article, sparky. This use of Kinect supplements traditional controllers, not supplanting them. That is, to say, you can use your wheel/thumbsticks/whatever *and* Kinect - together.

And I specifically think that is stupid as all hell. Way to jump on me without considering that. I should take my hands off the controller to wave at shit in an action game? Retarded IMO. Everyone likes to say motion controls are so awesome, but in reality I've hated them pretty much every time I've tried them. I also think a lot of people enjoy the novelty in a demo setting and ignore what would happen if they used it regularly.

And head tracking is god awful, worst idea ever concept wise unless you have 360 degree screens. Do you make it so a slight turn of the head is the full rotation or so that to look behind you one must look away from the screen? Or do you mix it up and use thumb sticks with head rotation to make it even more confusing? These are not value adds IMO, are at best neutral and at worst can really fuck up a game.

Turn 10 implemented the head tracking in Forza 4 so that you can lean your body to turn your head in the game, if you wish.

I can't use the thumb sticks to turn my head while racing, I end up driving off the track. Every indication from people who have tried the head tracking at E3 on Forza 4 said it worked very well.

And head tracking is god awful, worst idea ever concept wise unless you have 360 degree screens. Do you make it so a slight turn of the head is the full rotation or so that to look behind you one must look away from the screen? Or do you mix it up and use thumb sticks with head rotation to make it even more confusing? These are not value adds IMO, are at best neutral and at worst can really fuck up a game.

Turn 10 implemented the head tracking in Forza 4 so that you can lean your body to turn your head in the game, if you wish.

I can't use the thumb sticks to turn my head while racing, I end up driving off the track. Every indication from people who have tried the head tracking at E3 on Forza 4 said it worked very well.

Perhaps that wouldn't be so terrible in a racing game, but I still feel like I move without thinking about it when playing games and it would be incredibly annoying in practice, even if its neat to try out.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others.

You may want to go back to the article, sparky. This use of Kinect supplements traditional controllers, not supplanting them. That is, to say, you can use your wheel/thumbsticks/whatever *and* Kinect - together.

And I specifically think that is stupid as all hell. Way to jump on me without considering that. I should take my hands off the controller to wave at shit in an action game? Retarded IMO.

Jump, magic jump..

Try adding decaff - you're a little tightly wound.

You tied your comment to the replacement of traditional controls with the above quote.

I realize you feel like you're being attacked, but I'm just discussing the topic with you. We happen to disagree, which should make the discussion interesting - not a vein-popping stressor.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

Kinect IIRC does tonnes of onboard processing and echo cancellation and if you have one then it's already set up for your room. If I'm issuing voice commands I'd rather not wear a headset than wear one, if only to stop dunking the mic in my coffee whilst playing.

The problem is that Kinect *doesn't* do any onboard processing - unless things have changed since the Wikipedia article was written:

Quote:

it was revealed in January 2010 that the sensor would no longer feature a dedicated processor. Instead, processing would be handled by one of the processor cores of the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU. According to Alex Kipman, the Kinect system consumes about 10-15% of the Xbox 360's computing resources. However, in November, Alex Kipman made a statement that "the new motion control tech now only uses a single-digit percentage of the Xbox 360's processing power, down from the previously stated 10 to 15 percent

"single digit" resource consumption could mean anything from 1% to 9%, and given Alex's wording, I'd expect the value to be in the 7-9% range. That's a fair amount of processing power to be taking away from the graphics and physics engines, which in turn could impact framerate.

And there's also the issue with controller lag, as discussed in this thread - personally, I haven't played that much with the Kinect, but watching people play demos at gamestores, there has been perceptible lag between them moving a limb and the on-screen avatar responding. It's not huge and casual gamers are unlikely to even notice, but it's exactly the sort of thing which a hardcore gamer - such as those who want an edge in Forza - is likely to get frustrated by.

I really don't think motion-sensing gaming hardware is going to take off in the hardcore world until the next generation: the Xbox 360 (and PS3) are simply too long in the tooth now...

@j00ce: I think it had to do more with the framework of voice recognition being already built by the Kinect software, even if the processing is done by the 360. Basically, the software package SDK for Kinect made it easy for Bioware to implement, whereas if they were using a microphone input, they'd have to write the voice recognition software themselves, or use a third party solution that they would have had to pay for. Kinect made it (almost) free to implement, and i'm sure Microsoft gave them incentives for using it as well.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

That doesn't make any sense for MS though - why utilize a $15 accessory everyone has when you can utilize a $150 one no one has?

Can anyone confirm this? I believe the answer is that Kinect has voice recognition coded into the device's software and its processing is handled by the Kinect hardware. This would allow any game to easily add voice recognition without doing any voice recognition coding for their game, simply use the existing code on the Kinect. In order to add voice recognition to the PS3 version for example, Bioware would have to write that code and have the PS3 handle it, which would take resources away that the PS3 could otherwise use to have better looking graphics.

They should keep shifting it then, because honestly those are precisely the wrong kinds of games to use kinect for. When will we finally admit these motion control schemes are just totally inappropriate for some kinds of games? I play racing games on a wheel, FPS games on a mouse and keyboard ect ect. There is undoubtedly something neat that can be done with Kinect, but playing FPS games and racing games is not that thing.

Who is 'we'? Certainly not the majority of gamers. Motion controls are wildly popular precicely because they appeal to people who are not the traditional audience for a given genre. You are going to have to get over the fact that games are not designed for you personally at some point.

Seriously, FPS's sell far better on consoles with console controls than they do on PC. Racing games are played by plenty of people with nothing but a controller, no wheel. And if you can't imagine how a Kinect could enhance a game then you are not very imaginative. As I stated above, in a tactical shooter both voice control and hand signals, plus some level of head tracking would all be potentially very useful and immersive.

Do I think motion controls can completely replace any given control scheme? Of course not. But as a complementary technology it has awesome potential.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others. I just don't think the technology is really that interesting or impressive for current games. If Kinect is to find a killer app, I think it will be a game engineered with that control scheme in mind and will likely be something novel.

How is it not novel to be able to issue voice commands to your squad in a game? Remember, everything still works with the physical controller, but now you could issue commands directly by voice, increasing your ability to multi-task. How is it not a bonus to be able to use hand signals? How does head tracking detract from your ability to play the game?

My biggest problem with motion controls is the opposite, they have been used exclusively for games that are driven by those control schemes. I'd rather subtle enhancements, the ability to have a slight edge on those eschewing them by being able to do more at once with more of my body than just my hands on the controller.

You'll know this has arrived the day your opponent is kicking your butt because your simply glued to a single archaic control scheme and they are willing to use *all* the tools at their disposal.

If I was playing a squad based game taking my hands off the controls to wave at a stupid camera would be the LAST thing I would do, that's how you get killed frustratingly over and over. Voice commands fine maybe, but really its just going to mis-interpet you and screw you over. How much fun will it be when your squad charges enemy lines instead of retreating because it doesn't understand your panicked screaming in an intense situation? Buttons are nice and precise for the style of game play and work fine. And head tracking is god awful, worst idea ever concept wise unless you have 360 degree screens. Do you make it so a slight turn of the head is the full rotation or so that to look behind you one must look away from the screen? Or do you mix it up and use thumb sticks with head rotation to make it even more confusing? These are not value adds IMO, are at best neutral and at worst can really fuck up a game.

Some things just sound better on paper than they work out. Kinect for most game styles is one of them IMO.

I'll have to tell my brother that. You know, the ex-army guy who led squads on the ground in Iraq with an actual rifle in hand, yet still found voice and hand signals to be extremely efficient at controlling a unit. And believe me(or him), if it was more efficient to control your unit via a series of buttons mounted on your gun, it would have been done long ago. Turns out most humans can multi-task pretty well, and even know how to issue commands and maintain their ability to handle their weapons in actual combat situations.

Doing this in a game is trivial. Prioritize certain task groups to the set of controls that stays in the one hand if the other is being used. Permit voice when it makes sense. Use head tracking. Really, make the game play more like people do things in the real world and you increase the intuitiveness of the control scheme.

Its not a question of making games for me, its a question of making control schemes that work well for an activity. Have you ever tried to drive a car on a keyboard? On a thumb stick? With a mouse? With motion controls? Some of them offer a way better experience than others.

You may want to go back to the article, sparky. This use of Kinect supplements traditional controllers, not supplanting them. That is, to say, you can use your wheel/thumbsticks/whatever *and* Kinect - together.

And I specifically think that is stupid as all hell. Way to jump on me without considering that. I should take my hands off the controller to wave at shit in an action game? Retarded IMO. Everyone likes to say motion controls are so awesome, but in reality I've hated them pretty much every time I've tried them. I also think a lot of people enjoy the novelty in a demo setting and ignore what would happen if they used it regularly.

The market ignores your personal preferences. I didn't see a point to the Wii, but I'd be an idiot if I didn't admit it redefined gaming. I do not own a Kinect, so far nothing it does interests me with the games I like to play. But I'm not stupid enough to say it has no potential to enhance my gaming experience in the hands of a capable developer. And in some genres it makes a ton of sense immediatly.

Surely if you move your head you won't be looking at the screen anymore. And if the screen is big enough that you will still be looking at it, well, you don't need head tracking, cos its already showing you what you need to see.

What I don't understand is why the Kinect would be required or even involved in voice commands for a game like ME3. I mean, most people who play squad-based FPS's have a microphone already, one that is likely WAY more sensitive than the one(s) on the Kinect.

That doesn't make any sense for MS though - why utilize a $15 accessory everyone has when you can utilize a $150 one no one has?

Part of that is Kinect can offload that voice processing, meaning that the overhead of voice recognition doesn't have to be done by the 360. Every cycle of voice processing you add to the 360 is one that can't be doing other things. Doing it through the Kinect makes it virtually a co-processor.

Voice Commands sounds pretty cool for ME3, but I don't understand how it will pick up the commands over the sounds in the game if you have a nice sound setup. I'd pretty much have to shout anything for it to pick up. Seems like talking into a mic would make more sense.

I wonder if they are using natural motions for the kinect and forza. A lot of our motions are instinctual, so maybe we already start leaning or turning our heads (but our eyes stay focused) while playing, and this just enhances the experience. I don't have a kinect, so I can't say if it will be worth it to me. What I don't get is the hating--it's not like its mandatory.